`
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN
AND
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE K. SUJANA
F.C.A.No.319 OF 2010
ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice K. Lakshman)
Heard Sri V. Ravi Kiran Rao, learned Senior Counsel
representing Sri D. Shamanthakamani, learned counsel for the
appellant and Ms. E. Anisha Reddy, learned counsel for the
respondent.
2. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 28.09.2010 in F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2009 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Sessions Judge, Karimnagar, appellant-husband preferred the present appeal.
3. The appellant-husband filed F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2009 against respondent-wife seeking dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the ground of cruelty and that respondent-wife is suffering with mental disorder. The marriage of appellant with the respondent was performed on 22.02.2007 at Mini Varalaxmi Gardens, Karimnagar town. It is an arranged marriage. After marriage, the appellant and respondent set-up their family at Hyderabad in the month of April, 2 2007 and they blessed with a male child i.e., Rithish on 06.12.2007. Thereafter, matrimonial disputes arose between them. The appellant herein had filed the said F.C.O.P seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and that respondent is suffering with mental disorder on the following grounds:-
(i) During pregnancy, she stayed at Karimnagar with her parents and appellant observed that she was not cordial with appellant and without any cause she used to become angry. She was making disparaging comments on the appellant and his family members stating that now-a-days a labourer is earning more than appellant and his family members did not have manners. They are behaving like "Pichakuntla Family and they are beggars near Temples" etc.,. When the appellant questioned, respondent informed the appellant that her health was not good and she asked for excuse.
(ii) When the appellant wanted to talk with respondent on phone, she was not responding properly and she used to avoid him and the respondent used to say that she was in depression and her health condition was not good. Sometimes, she talked very harshly. Respondent did not allow the appellant for cohabitation.
3
(iii) A Panchayat was held. Even then, there is no improvement in the attitude and behavior of the respondent. She did not take care of the child properly. One day she came out of the house without properly wearing upper clothes i.e., blouse and bra and on seeing the same, the owner of the house i.e., PW.5 shouted at the respondent and took her inside the house.
(iv) The respondent was suffering with mental disorder and diseased called "Schizoaffective disorder". Even before marriage she had taken treatment with Dr. Kisan-PW.4 and the said fact was suppressed by her parents while performing the marriage. Thus, respondent subjected the appellant to mental cruelty.
4. Whereas, respondent filed counter denying the said allegations and according to her appellant himself harassed her. She lodged a complaint with Sananthanagar police station. Appellant started suspecting her fidelity and started creating rumors that the respondent is having illegal intimacy with others and he also sought D.N.A test about the paternity of the child. On one day, when she was cleaning the room, she opened a suit-case of the appellant and found H.I.V test reports of the appellant, condoms, photo of a girl and office 4 order of the appellant. On coming to know the same, appellant harassed the respondent more. Respondent has filed counter claim seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
5. To prove the said allegations, appellant examined himself as PW.1, his father as PW.2, known person as PW.3, Dr. Kishan as PW.4 and owner of the rented house where appellant and respondent stayed at Hyderabad as PW.5, he has filed Ex.P1 to Ex.P9 documents. Whereas, to disprove the allegation leveled against the respondent, she examined herself as RW.1, her father as RW.2 and Panchayat elder as RW.3. On consideration of the entire evidence both oral and documentary, learned Family Court vide impugned order dated 28.09.2010 dismissed the said F.C.O.P.No.24 of 2009 and allowed the counter claim filed by the respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
6. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred the present appeal on the following grounds:
(i) The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant before filing the FCOP got issued legal notice demanding the medical records pertaining to Schizophrenia on the strength of Ex.P3&P4 and therefore 5 learned Family Court ought to have drawn adverse inferences against the respondent for not making the record available.
(ii) The learned Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of PW.2 to PW.5 including PW.4-Doctor who treated respondent before marriage and after marriage. PW.3 to PW.5 are independent witnesses and even than learned Family Court failed to appreciate their depositions.
(iii) The learned Family Court failed to consider the fact that respondent was suffering with Schizophrenia before marriage and the said fact was suppressed by parents before performing the marriage.
(iv) The learned Family Court failed to consider the said disease i.e., Schizophrenia is incurable disease and respondent is suffering with the said disease since 2005. She has been using medicines for the same.
(v) The learned Family Court failed to consider the abnormal behavior of the respondent due to the said disease i.e., Schizophrenia subjected the appellant to mental cruelty.
(vi) Respondent has lodged a complaint against appellant and his family members and thus subjected them to mental cruelty. It is difficult to lead marital life with the respondent. 6
(vii) During cross-examination, respondent has admitted about consuming of powerful drugs for the said disease.
7. Whereas, learned counsel for the respondent would contend that learned Family Court considering the evidence both oral and documentary including PW.4-Doctor's evidence and also considering the nature of the disease i.e., Schizoaffective disorder and its effect, rightly dismissed the said O.P filed by the appellant seeking dissolution of marriage and allowed the counter claim filed by respondent seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is a reasoned order. There is no error in it. Even then, appellant preferred the present appeal only to get rid of the respondent.
8. As discussed surpa, there is no dispute that marriage of the appellant with respondent was performed on 22.02.2007 and it is an arranged marriage. After the marriage, they put up family at Hyderabad and blessed with a male child on 06.12.2007.
9. According to appellant, respondent used to behave unruly with him and subjected him to cruelty. After giving birth to male child, she did not allow the appellant for cohabitation. Her behavior is abnormal. She is suffering with schizophrenia since 2005 and doctor treated her before marriage. The said fact was suppressed by her parents. Therefore, the said abnormal behavior of the respondent due 7 to schizoaffective disorder subjected him to mental cruelty. Therefore, he is not in a position to lead marital life with respondent.
10. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, the deposition of PW.4-Doctor is crucial. PW.4-Doctor in his chief examination stated that on 28.07.20005, for the first time respondent patient was brought to his clinic by her father. He had examined her medically. When she was brought to his clinic, she was behaving abnormally. He has diagnosed the illness of the respondent as Schizoaffective disorder. He observed sleeplessness, suddenly getting anger, scolding others as the abnormal behavior of the respondent. He prescribed medicines. He gave anti psychotic and mood stabilizing drugs. She became normal subsequently in 2006 and again she got reoccurrence of the abnormal behavior. On 12.11.2006 respondent was again brought to his clinic by her father. He observed the very same behavior which was observed by him when respondent was brought to his clinic in 2005. He gave treatment, then respondent became normal. In 2009, respondent again visited his clinic along with her father, but she was having abnormal behavior but less when compared to her behavior in the year to 2005 and 2006. The third visit was after marriage.
8
11. He further deposed that sometimes patients like respondent will be having problem due to pregnancy or delivery which occurs due to changes in hormone levels. Such kind of flare up in the behavior will occur during the pregnancy and after delivery, in the case of patient like respondent can marry. He advised father of the respondent to go for marriage of respondent. Schizophrenia is a continuous disorder and it will not become normal whereas schizoaffective disorder will come down after treatment and in some times it will flare up. He cannot say when schizoaffective disorder becomes severe and when it will convert into schizophrenia. The patients with the schizophrenia will be suffering with delusions and illusions reality disturbance. Respondent and appellant can lead their marital life, if respondent takes medicines. If the medicine is discontinued again respondent may have the abnormal behavior. Respondent and her father did not inform him whether any of the family members are having this kind of abnormal behavior or behavior though their parents are having abnormal.
12. During cross-examination PW.4-Doctor categorically admitted that if there is moral support from the family members, then the patient though got 3 episodes may recover fully and it may not be necessary to take medicines, it happens in extraordinary 9 circumstances. There must be co-operation from the family members including the husband and all the family members must extend their love and affection to the patient.
13. In Vinita Saxena vs. Pankaj Pandit 1 in paragraph No.28, the Hon'ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider the disease 'Schizophrenia' and the said paragraph is relevant and it is reproduced here under:
28. It would be pertinent to observe that there is no evidence whatsoever adduced by the respondent or on his behalf. In fact, after recording of the examination-in-chief and part cross-examination, the respondent refused to come in the witness box and ran away. The observation has been made by the trial court in the proceedings. A research on the disease "Schizophrenia is one of the most damaging of all mental disorders. It causes its victims to lose touch with reality. They often begin to hear, see or feel things that aren't really there (hallucinations) or become convinced of things that simply aren't true (delusions). In the paranoid form of this disorder, they develop delusions of persecution or personal grandeur. The first signs of paranoid schizophrenia usually surface between the ages of 15 and 34. There is no cure, but the disorder can be controlled with medications. Severe attacks may require hospitalisation.
The appellant has filed Annexures L, M, N, O, P and Q which are extracts about the aforesaid disease. The extracts are sum and substance of the disease and on a careful reading it would be well established that the evidence and documents on record clearly make out a case in favour of the appellant and hence the appellant was entitled to the relief prayed. In the memorandum and grounds of appeal, some salient features of the disease have also been specified. Some of the relevant parts of the extracts from various medical publications are reproduced hereinbelow:
What is the disease and what one should know?
A psychotic lacks insight, has the whole of his personality distorted by illness, and constructs a false environment out of his subjective experiences.
It is customary to define 'delusion' more or less in the following way.
A delusion is a false unshakeable belief, which is out of keeping with the patient's social and cultural background. German psychiatrists 1 (2006) 3 SCC 778 10 tend to stress the morbid origin of the delusion, and quite rightly so. A delusion is the product of internal morbid processes and this is what makes it unamenable to external influences.
Apophanous experiences which occur in acute schizophrenia and form the basis of delusions of persecution, but these delusions are also the result of auditory hallucinations, bodily hallucinations and experiences of passivity. Delusions of persecution can take many forms. In delusions of reference, the patient feels that people are talking about him, slandering him or spying on him. It may be difficult to be certain if the patient has delusions of self-reference or if he has self-reference hallucinosis. Ideas of delusions or reference are not confined to schizophrenia, but can occur in depressive illness and psychogenic reactions.
Causes The causes of schizophrenia are still under debate. A chemical imbalance in the brain seems to play a role, but the reason for the imbalance remains unclear. One is a bit more likely to become schizophrenic if he has a family member with the illness. Stress does not cause schizophrenia, but can make the symptoms worse. Risks Without medication and therapy, most paranoid schizophrenics are unable to function in the real world. If they fall victim to severe hallucinations and delusions, they can be a danger to themselves and those around them.
What is schizophrenia?
Schizophrenia is a chronic, disabling mental illness characterised by: Psychotic symptoms Disordered thinking Emotional blunting How does schizophrenia develop?
Schizophrenia generally develops in late adolescence or early adulthood, most often:
In the late teens or early twenties in men In the twenties to early thirties in women What are the symptoms of schizophrenia?
Although schizophrenia is chronic, symptoms may improve at times (periods of remission) and worsen at other times (acute episodes, or period of relapse).
Initial symptoms appear gradually and can include: Feeling tense Difficulty in concentrating Difficulty in sleeping Social withdrawal What are psychotic symptoms?
Psychotic symptoms include:
Hallucinations: hearing voices or seeing things. Delusions: bizarre beliefs with no basis in reality (for example, delusions of persecution or delusions of grandeur). 11
These symptoms occur during acute or psychotic phases of the illness, but may improve during periods of remission.
A patient may experience:
A single psychotic episode during the course of the illness Multiple psychotic episodes over a lifetime Continuous psychotic episodes During a psychotic episode, the patient is not completely out of touch with reality. Nevertheless, he/she has difficulty distinguishing distorted perceptions of reality (hallucinations, delusions) from reality, contributing to feelings of fear, anxiety, and confusion. The disorder can prove dangerous for some--especially when symptoms of paranoia combine with the delusional symptoms of schizophrenia. In fact, doctors say paranoid schizophrenics are notorious for discontinuing the treatments which help control their symptoms.
The Indian Drug Review has specified the drug Trifluoperidol as a sedative and tranquiliser. With regard to administration it has been suggested that it is given to a patient suffering from schizophrenia. Incidentally this drug was being administered on medical advice to the respondent."
14. In Kollam Chandra Sekhar vs. Kollam Padma Latha 2, the Hon'ble Apex Court considered about the said disease schizophrenia. In the said case to prove the said disease, husband examined the doctor who treated his wife as RW.2, who in-turn deposed that Schizophrenia is a mental disorder which can be put on a par with diseases like hypertension and diabetes. Considering the said aspects and also principle laid down by it, Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere existence of a mental disorder of any degree sufficient in law to justify the dissolution of marriage. The husband has to prove the existence of serious mental disorder by producing sure and safe evidence.
2 (2014) 1 SCC 225 12
15. In Vinita Saexna's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court on consideration of the entire evidence observed that mental disorder is of such a type that sexual act and procreation of children is not possible, on the said ground husband can obtain divorce. The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that cruelty and mental disorder are two different grounds for grant of divorce.
16. In Hemali Bindesh Kelaiya vs. Bindesh Jayantilal Kelaiya 3, a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court also considered Schizophrenia. Paragraph No.24 of the said judgment is relevant and the same is extracted below:
24. Merely branding a spouse as a schizophrenic is not sufficient. The degree of mental disorder of the spouse must be proved to be such that petitioning spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other.
The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Narain Gupta v. Rameshwari Gupta; reported in (1988) 4 SCC 247 : AIR 1988 SC 2260, has held that the degree of mental disorder must be proved. It should be such that the petitioning spouse cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. The context in which the ideas of unsoundness of "mind" and "mental disorder" occur in the section as grounds for dissolution of a marriage, require the assessment of the degree of the "mental disorder". Its degree must be such that the spouse seeking relief cannot reasonably be expected to live with the other. All mental abnormalities 3 2014 SCC Online Bom 89 13 are not recognized as grounds for grant of decree. If the mere existence of any degree of mental abnormality could justify dissolution of a marriage, few marriages would, indeed, survive in law. But the personality disintegration that characterizes this illness may be of varying degrees. Not all schizophrenics are characterized by the same intensity of the disease. The mere branding of a person as schizophrenic therefore, will not suffice. For the purpose of Section 13(1)(iii) "schizophrenia" is what schizophrenia does. According to clause (iii), two elements are necessary to get a decree. The party concerned must be of unsound mind or intermittently suffering from schizophrenia or mental disorder. At the same time that disease must be of such a kind and of such an extent that the other party cannot reasonably be expected to live with him. So only one element of that clause is insufficient to grant a decree."
On examination of the facts and on consideration of the entire evidence, Bombay High Court held that wife failed to prove that husband was suffering with Schizophrenia.
17. In Pankaj Mahajan vs. Dimple Alias Kajaj 4, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that appellant-husband proved the mental illness and cruelty and therefore there is no possibility to unite the chain of marital life between them. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court granted divorce on the ground of cruelty and mental disorder. 4 (2011) 12 SCC 1 14
18. In Anchuri Subbaraju vs. Anchuri Sunitha 5, a Division Bench of High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the state of Andhra Pradesh considered the facts of the said case therein stated that mere filing of criminal cases against respondent by the wife does not amounts to cruelty. The spouse who is making allegations of cruelty and mental disorder has to prove the same by producing sure and safe evidence.
19. Section 13(1)(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with "mental disorder" as a ground of divorce is only where it is of such a kind and degree that the appellant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Where the parties are young and the mental disorder is of such a type that sexual act and procreation of children is not possible, it may furnish a good ground for nullifying the marriage because to beget children from a Hindu wedlock is one of the principal aims of Hindu marriage where sanskar of marriage is advised for progeny and offspring. The said view was taken in Alka Sharma vs. Abhinesh Chandra Sharma 6.
20. In Sheldon vs. Sheldon 7, lord Denning held as follows:-
"The categories of cruelty are not closed."
"Each case may be different. We deal with the conduct of human beings who are not generally similar. Among the human beings 5 2015(4) ALD 614 6 AIR 1991 MP 205 7 (1966) 2 All ER 257 15 there is no limit to the kind of conduct which may constitute cruelty. New type of cruelty may crop up in any case depending upon the human behavior, capacity or incapability to tolerate the conduct complained of such is the wonderful (sic) realm of cruelty. The said principle was followed by Apex Court in Shobha Rani vs. Madhukar Reddi 8.
21. In Vinita Saxena's case, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No.45 held as follows:-
45. Spouses owe rights and duties each to the other and in their relationship they must act reasonably. In every case where cruelty exists it is possible to say that the spouse at fault has been unreasonable. The list of cruelty, therefore, should be breach of the duty to act reasonably, whether in omission or commission, causing injury to health. Such a list avoids imputing an intention where in fact none may exist. Further all such matters are foresight, desires, wishes, intention, motives, perception, obtuseness, persistence and indifference would remain relevant but merely as a matter of evidence bearing upon the requirement to act reasonably or as aggravation of the matters charged.
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court relying on its judgment in Naveen Kohli vs. Neelu Kohli 9 and also three judges bench judgment in Samar Ghosh vs. Jaya Ghosh 10 in paragraph No.101 observed incidents of cruelty:-
101. No uniform standard can ever be laid down for guidance, yet we deem it appropriate to enumerate some instances of human behaviour which may be relevant in dealing with the cases of "mental cruelty". The instances indicated in the succeeding paragraphs are only illustrative and not exhaustive:
(i) On consideration of complete matrimonial life of the parties, acute mental pain, agony and suffering as would not make possible for the parties to live with each other could come within the broad parameters of mental cruelty.
(ii) On comprehensive appraisal of the entire matrimonial life of the parties, it becomes abundantly clear that situation is such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with other party.8
(1988) 1 SCC 105 9 (2006) 4 SCC 558 10 (2007) 4 SCC 511 16
(iii) Mere coldness or lack of affection cannot amount to cruelty, frequent rudeness of language, petulance of manner, indifference and neglect may reach such a degree that it makes the married life for the other spouse absolutely intolerable.
(iv) Mental cruelty is a state of mind. The feeling of deep anguish, disappointment, frustration in one spouse caused by the conduct of other for a long time may lead to mental cruelty.
(v) A sustained course of abusive and humiliating treatment calculated to torture, discommode or render miserable life of the spouse.
(vi) Sustained unjustifiable conduct and behaviour of one spouse actually affecting physical and mental health of the other spouse. The treatment complained of and the resultant danger or apprehension must be very grave, substantial and weighty.
(vii) Sustained reprehensible conduct, studied neglect, indifference or total departure from the normal standard of conjugal kindness causing injury to mental health or deriving sadistic pleasure can also amount to mental cruelty.
(viii) The conduct must be much more than jealousy, selfishness, possessiveness, which causes unhappiness and dissatisfaction and emotional upset may not be a ground for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(ix) Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty.
(x) The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years will not amount to cruelty. The ill conduct must be persistent for a fairly lengthy period, where the relationship has deteriorated to an extent that because of the acts and behaviour of a spouse, the wronged party finds it extremely difficult to live with the other party any longer, may amount to mental cruelty.
(xi) If a husband submits himself for an operation of sterilisation without medical reasons and without the consent or knowledge of his wife and similarly, if the wife undergoes vasectomy or abortion without medical reason or without the consent or knowledge of her husband, such an act of the spouse may lead to mental cruelty.
(xii) Unilateral decision of refusal to have intercourse for considerable period without there being any physical incapacity or valid reason may amount to mental cruelty.
(xiii) Unilateral decision of either husband or wife after marriage not to have child from the marriage may amount to cruelty.
(xiv) Where there has been a long period of continuous separation, it may fairly be concluded that the matrimonial bond is beyond repair. The marriage becomes a fiction though supported by a legal tie. By refusing to sever that tie, the law in such cases, does not serve the sanctity of marriage; on the contrary, it shows scant regard for the feelings and emotions of the parties. In such like situations, it may lead to mental cruelty.
17
23. Referring to the literature on 'Schizophrenia', learned counsel for the appellant would contend that "schizophrenia is a chronic mental illness that has no cure."
24. In the present case, it is specifically contended by the appellant that respondent is suffering with Schizophrenia and to prove the same, he has examined PW.4-Doctor who treated the respondent from 2005 onwards i.e., before marriage. He has filed Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 i.e., prescriptions issued by PW.4.
25. In the light of the same, the deposition of PW.4-Doctor is relevant and in chief examination he has deposed that if there is moral support from the family members, then the patient though got 3 episodes may recover fully and it may not be necessary to take medicines, it happens in extraordinary circumstances. There must be co-operation from the family members including the husband of all the family members must extend their love and affection to the patient and he further deposed that patient like respondent can marry and he advised father of the respondent to go for marriage of respondent. He further deposed that patient with the schizophrenia will be suffering with delusions and illusions reality disturbance. Respondent and appellant can lead their marital life if respondent takes medicines. If 18 the medicine is discontinued again respondent may have the abnormal behavior.
26. In the present case, as per the appellant the following incidents are mental cruelty:-
(a) The appellant observed that the respondent was not cordial with him.
(b) Without any cause, she used to become angry and she was making disparaging comments on him and his family members stating that now-a-days a labourer is earning more than the appellant and his family members did not have manners and they are behaving like "Pichakuntla Family and they are beggers near Temples".
(c) When respondent came to Hyderabad for medical checkup she did not behave properly and she also attempted to commit suicide.
(d) After giving birth to a male child, whenever the appellant wanted to talk with the respondent on phone, she did not respond properly and she used to avoid him. She used to say that she was in depression and her health condition was not good. Sometimes, she talked very harshly. She did not allow the appellant for cohabitation.
27. It is relevant to note that the marriage of appellant with respondent was solemnized on 22.02.2007 and they blessed with a 19 male child on 06.12.2007. During cross-examination, PW.1 admitted that immediately after marriage respondent became pregnant. On consideration of the said aspects and also the evidence of PW.4-Doctor and also considering the mental disorder in terms of Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act, learned Family Court gave a specific finding that appellant failed to prove the said mental disorder.
28. It is relevant to note that Section 13(1)(iii) of Hindu Marriage Act is relevant and the same is extracted below:-
(i) Any marriage solemnized, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, may, on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife, be dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground that the other party -
(ii) has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, and in the explanation, it is stated that -
(a)The expression "mental disorder" means mental illness arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia.
(b)The expression "psychopathic disorder" means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the other party, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment.
29. Considering the said aspects and also deposition of PW.4-Doctor who treated the respondent and also considering the principle laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Vinitha Saxena's case and other judgments, learned Family Court dismissed the said OP 20 filed by husband seeking dissolution of marriage and allowed the counter claim filed by wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights.
30. The learned Family Court also considered the fact that marriage of the appellant with respondent was performed on 22.02.2007 and they blessed with a male child on 06.12.2007, respondent is suffering is schizoaffective disorder before marriage, the said fact was suppressed by her parents. But however, he has filed the present OP in the year 2009. In between the marriage and filing of the said OP, both the appellant and respondent lead their conjugal life. Immediately after the marriage, respondent became pregnant and subsequently she delivered a male child on 06.12.2007. During the period of pregnancy also, PW.1 visited the respondent at Karimnagar. He did not state the steps he has taken to consult any doctor. With the said observations, learned Family Court held that appellant failed to prove the cruelty and the said mental disorder.
31. It is also opt to refer that during cross examination, PW.1 categorically admitted that he did not take respondent to any doctor in Hyderabad.
32. It is also opt to note that on one day when respondent was cleaning the room, she opened suit-case of the appellant and found H.I.V test reports of the appellant, condoms, photo of a girl and office 21 order of the appellant. On coming to know about the same, appellant harassed the respondent more.
33. It is also relevant to note that Panchayat was held between appellant and respondent. They have entered into a settlement vide Ex.P5 dated 27.07.2008. In the said settlement, both the appellant and respondent have agreed that they will behave like husband and wife. They have also agreed that for any issue in future they are responsible. The said Ex.P5 was signed by appellant, respondent, appellant's father, respondent's father and five witnesses. The said fact was suppressed in the FCOP.No.24 of 2009. However, during cross-examination, he has admitted that he left the place of Panchayat and thereafter, Ex.A5-Panchayat agreement was entered. The said statement was factually incorrect. Appellant and respondent along with their fathers have signed the said agreement. It was also signed by five witnesses.
34. Vide Ex.P6-legal notice dated 21.03.2009, appellant demanded to furnish the medical record of the respondent. Whereas, vide reply dated 31.03.2009, while denying the allegations made by appellant, respondent expressed her willingness and readiness to join the company of appellant. Even then, appellant did not make any effort to get the respondent to his company.
22
35. The appellant and respondent blessed with a male child on 06.12.2007. Now, he is aged about 16 years. Considering the said aspects, learned Family Court dismissed the OP filed by appellant-husband seeking dissolution of marriage and allowed the counter claim filed by respondent-wife seeking restitution of conjugal rights. It is a reasoned order, well founded and it does not require interference by this Court in the present appeal. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J _______________ K. SUJANA, J 03.11.2023 Ssy